tv Charlie Rose Bloomberg July 22, 2016 10:00pm-11:01pm EDT
charlie: welcome to the program . on the final night of the republican national convention in cleveland, ohio, donald trump made the most important speech of his life. he was introduced by his daughter, ivanka. here are excerpts from these speeches. ivanka: one year ago, i introduced my father when he declared his candidacy. in his own way and through his own sheer force of will, he sacrificed greatly to enter the political arena as an outsider and he prevailed against a field of 16 very talented competitors. [applause] for more than a year, donald trump has been the people's champion, and, tonight, he is the people's nominee!
[applause] like many of my fellow millennials, i do not consider myself categorically republican or democrat. more than party affiliation, i vote based on what i believe is right for my family and for my country. sometimes it's a tough choice. that is not the case this time. as the proud daughter of your nominee, i am here to tell you that this is the moment and donald trump is the person to make america great again. [applause] real change, the kind we have not seen in decades, is only going to come from outside
system, and it's only going to come from a man who has spent his entire life doing what others said could not be done. my father is a fighter. when the primaries got tough, and they were tough, he did what any great leader does. he dug deeper, worked harder, got better, and became stronger. [applause] i have seen him fight for his family. i have seen him fight for his employees. i have seen him fight for his company. and now i am seeing him fight for our country. [applause] it's been the story of his life and, more recently, the spirit of his campaign. it's also a prelude to reaching the goal that unites us all. when this party and, better still, this country knows what it is like to win again.
>> [audience chanting "usa! usa!"] mr. trump: who would have believed that when we started this journey on june 16 last year, we, and i say "we," because we are a team, would have received almost 14 million votes, the most in the history of the republican party and that the republican party would get 60% more votes than it received eight years ago? who would have believed it? who would've believed it? the democrats, on the other hand, received 20% fewer votes than they got four years ago. not so good, not so good. [applause]
together, we will lead our party back to the white house and we will lead our country back to safety, prosperity, and peace. [applause] we will be a country of generosity and warmth, but we will also be a country of law and order. announcer: from our studios in new york city, this is "charlie rose." charlie: we are in cleveland for the final day of the republican national convention. we are taking this program ahead of donald trump's highly anticipated address this evening. the speech comes a day after ted cruz refused to endorse the republican nominee, causing further rancor within the party or certainly between donald
trump and ted cruz. ted cruz's speech overshadowed the indiana governor, mike pence, who accepted the vice presidential nomination. joining me is tom barrack, founder and executive chairman of carlyle capital. he is also a longtime friend of donald trump. it is now 3:00 p.m. in cleveland on thursday. later, he will mount the podium and make a speech on behalf of his friend. later this evening, donald himself will give the speech that is very important to this convention and to the image that he wants to present to the country. welcome to this table we have here in cleveland. i want to talk about your speech first. what do you want to say about donald trump? tom: in seven minutes, it's a tough job. so, what i thought i'd do is just give a reflection of the man as the messenger, not the message, the side of him that i've seen over 40 years that people don't know or find it
impossible to believe that he could be kind, compassionate, empathetic. charlie: all things you've seen. tom: all things i've seen in the quiet moments when the cameras aren't flashing of who he really is as a man. and can you really trust the decisions of a man like that in this position? charlie: how will you make that case? tom: i'm going to make it through some vignettes. charlie: stories. tom: invisible stories, not the stories of his wealth, not the stories of his power, not the stories of his celebrityship. of those quiet things of his humanity that i've seen him do that stuck in his mind as footprints over all these years. charlie: when did he tell you he wanted to run for president? tom: the first time, probably 10 years ago. he is an amazing guy. when you think of it, there's a lot of powerful number rich, accomplished -- powerful, rich,
accomplished businessman who are never celebrities. he created "the donald." he is talking about himself in third person, the character -- caricature he created. along the way, the human touch that he had was always endemic. here, we started to talk about it almost a decade ago. but i always thought it was a negotiating tactic of his celebrityship. and i think the last time, it probably was. but i think as he gained self-confidence and found this aggregate vision -- this aggravation, this social in balance, this little fuel that we are seeing -- charlie: economic discontent. this year, people are troubled and they are looking to find something new, something beyond
the establishment, something beyond the political parties may have known. tom: exactly. and the social imbalance for him -- people misread it. he is not a trust fund guy. his dad was the son of two german immigrants and his mother herself was a scottish immigrant. so, his dad was a self-made man from queens, pretty tough on donald. so, donald's natural alliance actually is with the little guy. so when you look at his peers, he is not a man of wall street, he is not a man of finance, he is not even a man of the real estate peer group. i think that he is -- charlie: he is? tom: he is a disruptor. he is the airbnb to marriott. he is a man of his own that can step into the middle of the fray and take the heat and, through his vision, create a reality. that is unusual. charlie: he wants to be president because he thinks he can make a difference.
tom: absolutely. charlie: how much of it is ego? how much of it is -- tom: that's a great question, and i really couldn't answer it. i'm sure a lot of it is ego. you test yourself. i mean, what sane person, a businessman of his ilk, would walk through this fire and take all the punishment if there weren't a couple of objectives? i'm sure ego is one of them, that he thinks he's smart enough, tough enough, capable enough to get there. on the other hand, at end of the day, i think he looks and says, i'm the beneficiary of an unbelievable system. he is so far over his skis from where in his own mind he thought he would get. charlie: that's interesting. he is so far over his skis in life beyond where he thought he would be in terms of life, wealth, fame -- perhaps political power?
tom: exactly. charlie: smart man? tom: very. intrinsically, academically first-class. he has all of those academic disciplines in his quiver. but, uniquely, instinctively smart. he has one of the best gut feels one-on-one for people or sensing a situation. when we talk about "the art of the deal," the art of the deal is a little whimsical. he's incredibly prepared. what people don't know is the detail level that he really -- charlie: there is a central tom, that hehim, has not given detail. he is not on details. he says "i'm the best negotiator. when i negotiate with the chinese, i will create a better deal." it's not about the specifics. he talked to bit about nato in "the new york times," raised questions as to why they are not paying their fair share.
the companies that are members of nato. that's a valid criticism. president obama has raised that criticism. but what also he said, which scares a lot of people, and maybe it is the foreign-policy establishment and maybe he wants , to scare them, but they hear that and think, well, america has to live up to their -- its agreements. if a nato country is prepared for america to come to defend them, they ought to be able to depend on that. and if america is attacked, america ought to be able to expect nato to come to its defense, too. tom: look, it's a tough topic. let me give you my opinion of what i think he's doing. and it is backed with some substance, because i live in that world. my business as a financier lives off of trade and trade agreements, mostly on an international basis. the criticism of nato is not just his. it's the hoover institute. charlie: it's also president obama. president obama also said they are not paying their fair share. tom: it was born out of world war ii.
if you look at the marshall plan and the onset of what happened to it destroyed europe -- 17 million dead in europe, 20 million injured, 30 million homes destroyed, and a europe in decay at a time when we were really concerned about the soviet union. nato has nothing to do with north america. it has to do with europe. charlie: it was, in fact, a defense against russia, the soviet union at the time. tom: then russia, in turn, five years later started the warsaw pact. as kind of a balance. i think what donald is saying -- and by the way, he is academically pretty good underneath this. when i talk to him about the facts, in other words, the initial reaction is he is just a leading, he is just -- just bullying, he is just positioning, he actually is not. he gets a lot of the substance. what he's doing on all of these issues is saying, look, none of it is working because now you have bureaucracies. so you have nato, you have g.a.p., you had the marshall
plan, the imf. nobody knows what any of these entities do. why are we paying for them? it's all foreign policy. it's all foreign policy related, and our foreign policy doesn't work. so, i think what he's doing, in a smart way, is saying, "look, i'm throwing a little bit of fire, and i know, into the frying pan, and people are going to be concerned, but them being concerned is a good thing." charlie: you are saying, well you think he understands the issues, he also understands the value of inflammatory rhetoric. tom: absolutely. charlie: because that will create a discussion. it's a negotiating tactic. you start not with what you think you'll get. tom: sure, because you are negotiating with bureaucracy. when you go to negotiate with nato or g.a.p. or world bank or the imf or the wto, there are
-- they are now huge bureaucracies themselves. they are not going to erode themselves. at a time when we are sitting here saying there is no way out of entitlement, how do you reverse the budget for anything? it is not the president. i mean the president is a , conciliator. he is an executive. charlie: when he has all these names in calling hillary clinton "crooked," "lying ted cruz," and all the things that he said -- even what he said about john mccain, does that have a purpose? tom: look, he's a friend, so i can disagree with him. i don't personally like any of it, and the reason i don't like any of it is because he's better than that. he doesn't need to go there. charlie: so, why does he? tom: because he caught onto something, this fissure in the american people that is against the grain but worked.
if he would have been presidential -- and he could have, by the way -- the way we would have liked him to do it -- charlie: he can only be where he is if he did what he did? tom: i think so. and by the way, look -- how can you say hillary clinton is not capable? wesleyan, yale, two-time u.s. senator, wife of the president, secretary of state. she is amazingly accomplished. it is simply a decision between status quo and disruption. charlie: if you could define this election, that's what it is about? tom: to me, that's what it is about, status quo versus disruption. charlie: which is in one word -- nge." tom tom: nobody understands it. the problem is we are all prisoners in our own prison. when i sit down and talk to really smart people, not as smart as you, but that understand finance, but don't understand trade, or don't understand foreign-policy, or don't understand the intervention of the central banks -- we are all captive. we are living in $19 trillion of debt.
we just keep printing money and the debt is not secured by anything. it is too overwhelming for the average individual to think through. we just can't figure out where it is. i think hillary and ted and marco and all these people, they are all first-class. they would not have gotten to where they have gotten if they weren't capable, competent, and elegant and well-meaning. charlie: but that's not how he characterizes them, is it? and you are saying if he did not characterize them that way, he probably would not have one? -- would not have won? was a galvanizing use of language? tom: it was his way around the club. in other words, the political rhetoric and legacy would not allow him even in the room. so, the only way you could get in the room was to knock the walls down. charlie: how much of it is set for effect and to get around, and how much of it -- how much of it is said for effect and to get around, and how much of it is what he believes? tom: this is my opinion, and he will be angry at me for saying
this, because if you asking that -- ask him that question, he says it is absolutely not for effect. "i'm going to build a wall. they are going to pay for the wall." right? i'm an arab-american. i'm a lebanese immigrant. i'm the epitome of the blind luck of the american. i'm a catholic, but i grew up with sunnis and shias. i have this conversation with him. "so, you're not really saying --" "yes, i'm really saying that i will stop them all in till they -- until they help us." now, out of that, half my life is spent in the middle east. i run a public company, and the public company has a lot of private capital silos. and countries like abu dhabi and qatar and saudi arabia, with the young prince, are our allies. they themselves are trapped by fundamentalism, and they need
our help, but our foreign policy there has been waving. when they have a war in yemen and the iranians are backing one side and the saudis are backing another and we are funding both sides, it is a bit confusing. even they are saying, "ok, i get it. we still have to take responsibility for stopping this fundamentalism within our own borders, and it starts in the middle of the mosques." so, if you have a mullah preaching that some 16-year-old boy should strap on dynamite and wander through tel aviv or new york city, we are going to hold you responsible. charlie: where they are actually preaching it over the internet? tom: they are all saying, "yes, we agree, but america has to back us. otherwise we are going to have fundamentalist revolutions everywhere." they look at us and say, "we don't get it."
the shaw of iran was our person. the shah of iran was our person. iraq, saddam hussein. libya, same thing. it is the dilemma all over again. charlie: you are saying they don't know whether we are on their side and we will stand up with them, even though we have been their ally, whatever the instant is. and donald trump says to them what? tom: donald trump says, "look, i don't care. you start taking care of your own, the good allies. the ones who are there. are herely the gcc who to help. and we will protect our allies and punish our enemies." so, if you want to start helping own houseean your syria is a different, first. mind-boggling problem. predictabilityat on both sides. amazingly, the arabs looking at us say we have to figure out a
way together to do this, because it is a problem. and europe is saying the same thing. 3 million -- 3 million refugees moving to europe is a gigantic problem when there is no hope. right? when there is no hope. charlie: it's a humanitarian crisis on the one hand and it's an issue of great concern for recipient countries who want to do the right thing, but, because -- both because of its economic burden as well as its other issues. tom: exactly. islam is like catholicism. looking at catholicism at the time of the crusades, of course it is harsh at times. but what is harsh is when young people don't have a future -- i was at the refugee camps in lebanon. unicef, which does an amazing job -- i was almost in tears. 500,000 kids. 500,000. under the age of 14. and if we don't give them hope, there's only one place that they can go. charlie: actually, that reflects the dealings of a friend of mine, the former deputy director of the cia. we have to find an alternative narrative.
you have to figure out at the core, it is as much about being able to break that bond that the people who are preaching this extreme version of fundamentalism -- you have to find out what an alternative narrative and how you can get to them with that, and that's what you have to do to stop it, and that's the only way you can stop it. because if you go here and you destroy isis, it will come up somewhere else, because isis came from al qaeda in iraq. tom: and this is the challenge. charlie: so, let me ask you about this. the muslim ban. you are lebanese catholic. tom: yes. charlie it offends people who : believe it is not american. this is a country that welcomed people, that welcomed your ancestors. welcomed donald trump's
ancestors. welcomed my ancestors. that's who we are. and to say, "i'm going to ban people because of their religion" is not what we are. tom: look, he is -- charlie: do you agree with him? tom: i agree with him for a starter, yes. in other words, saying it. i don't agree with him doing it, but i agree with him saying it, because no one knows who he really is. every arab country is going, "wow, will he really do it?" they are asking the question. they hear him saying, "yes, i will really do it." so, our friends, abu dhabi, dubai qatar, saudi arabia are , already trying to align a position, i need you to do this, then i can start winnowing away at fundamentalism. i will do it. i will get there and we will do it together. charlie: how did he come to this? is it all instinct? did he have a series of people
from the region or academics or former state department people, you, who gave him a tutorial in this? tom: i think a lot of it is self-made. i think at the edges he does have arab partners, amazingly enough. he has chinese partners, he has mexican partners. he has talked to me about it. and i think his point of view for america is sound. in other words, he is saying, until i get a handle on it, "we'll shut it down." it's not so far-fetched. when you think of it being religious-oriented -- and, my personal belief is it won't happen, because as soon as you have a cohesive foreign policy that tells the middle east we will help our friends, we will benefit our friends, and we will punish our enemies, and you draw hard lines around the enemies -- when you draw a line around the enemy, you make it stick. charlie: you are saying that he is a man that really decided he could be president in the last
four years set out to do that. , he was wise and smart and savvy to see that there was a huge discontent that nobody was in the leadership of, and, from day one, began to talk about that. it had to do with immigration and a range of issues. but he is now coming to power. and if he is elected, will, in a sense, start with a -- start with almost a -- a beginning point. tom: yes, exactly. here is what i look at the measure of how good he is going to be. technically, he is great as a businessman, as an astute disciplinarian. his vice president pick, picture-perfect, hard to argue with. i went to a transition meeting yesterday. chris christie, the head of the transition team -- he is amazing. the process they are using to staff those 4000 jobs now is the best i've ever seen, the most
methodical, the most thoughtful. the recruiting process of what they are looking for, how they are recruiting talent. so, i think that he'll do it. i think that he'll surround himself with unbelievably talented people who are not of the system, but understand the system. charlie: tom thank you for , coming. good luck with your speech. we will be right back. stay with us. ♪
charlie: joining me is steve mnuchin, donald trump's national campaign finance chairman. donald trump faces a campaign deficit against hillary clinton. i'm pleased to have him on this program. steve: thank you, i'm pleased to be here. charlie: is the party united? steve: you know what, i think the party is united. i think ted cruz came out and supported a lie. whether he supports donald or he doesn't, i don't think it's terribly relevant. this has been an incredibly exciting week. charlie: you told -- he told those delegates to "vote your conscience." steve: i don't really think that's all that relevant. if you look at what's going on this week, and it's been incredibly exciting. i've been here for monday on. and the energy that has been at this convention is extraordinary. if you look at what donald trump
has done to the party and his contribution in bringing new people to the party, it is extraordinary. last night, just as an example, we did close to $4 million in online donations. a republican has never raised this type of money online. it signifies the extraordinary support. we have over 700,000 unique donors that we had in the last few weeks, and we just started this effort. i think there are a lot of bernie sanders supporters and others supporting donald. charlie: what's the evidence of that? steve: the indirect evidence of the contributors. charlie: it is said and the evidence is you are way behind hillary clinton. steve: i wouldn't say that at all. charlie: that's conventional wisdom. she spent $49 million already. you haven't spent a dime in television ads. steve: that doesn't mean we're way behind. that just means she's spending a lot.
let's look at the facts. we started this effort five weeks ago. you have a unique situation that donald funded the entire campaign up to getting him the nomination. charlie: and used free media. steve: he used a lot of free media and also used his extraordinary social following. he has over 20 million people that follow him through social media. and if you look at what we've raised, we've raised $51 million in five weeks through the month. if you look at hillary, who did raise more than the $51 million, she has been doing this for 10 years. we have been doing this for five weeks. charlie: you are saying we are not that far behind. we can raise every bit as much money as she can. steve: we can raise as much as we need, which is going to be hundreds of millions of dollars. i think she's going to need a lot more money. she has 900 people. we have 150 people. which i think says a lot about
how she would run the government. charlie: how are you doing with traditional financial sources in the funding? --rlie: i think we have been steve: i think we are doing well. governor pence coming on the ticket has helped us a lot. i think there have been a lot of people who are now excited to join, and he's going to be part of our fundraising effort. and there's a whole bunch of new donors who have not donated to the party before. charlie: what did governor pence bring that attracted him likedon mark the family him a lot. steven: donald was looking for someone who had government experience. donald understands that he has not been a politician, and he and he thought it was important to have someone with him who could govern. pence brings a lot of experience to the table. charlie: when did you know he was going to run for president? steven: i actually knew over a year ago.
he came to los angeles and we were having dinner and he talks to me about running for president. charlie: he said, "i'm going to do this, i need your help." steven: i didn't -- he didn't say that. he was just talking about it. he didn't ask me for help until only three months ago, when he won new york. that's when he decided he really needed help in terms of fundraising. he called me the next day and asked if i would come on as the finance chairman. charlie: there are people that said no one would believe this is possible. when he first said this, did you believe it was possible? steven: i did, because i heard it last time when he was thinking of running. he was very serious this time. charlie: what was different between the two times? steven: i think this time he thought it was the right time. i think he was very close last time to doing it. for a bunch of different reasons, he decided not to. this time, he really wanted to do it. he saw it as an opportunity to
help the country. charlie: this idea of where the country was and his decision to run, that just happened to be a very, very productive convergence, or did he see the discontent in the country and knew that he could address that and, if he could address that well, he could be successful? steven: i think he did see it. i think more he felt like he had an obligation to address it. i travel with him all the time. trust me, this guy has more energy than anybody i know. he is doing this because he really wants to help the american people. charlie: of all the criticism, which offends you the most ? hillary clinton said on monday "he would be the most dangerous man ever to run for president." what criticism offends you the most and you find most egregious and most untrue? steven: i mean, i would say that is probably the single one that i find most untrue. i think this guy is very, very careful.
i think, although he doesn't have military backgrounds, he is going to bring very serious advisors on board in terms of military defense and foreign policy. he's going to surround himself with an extraordinary cabinet. he is very careful. he is very thoughtful, and i think he will be a great president. charlie: as you know, he attracted a lot of attention when he talked about nato in an interview with "the new york times." my question also is, will he say to nafta, we no longer are going to the party to the nafta agreement? will he say to those organizations that we are party to, we will -- we want to renegotiate everything? steven: i think the first thing he's going to do -- and again, we are looking at this now. there are sound policies being built to be able to execute these things on day one. i think the first issue is, he's going to expect the counterparties, the other countries -- the first thing they have to do is honor these agreements. if you look at china, china is not honoring many aspects of the wto.
if you look at nafta, there are specific areas of nafta that are not being honored. in nafta, there is a component that it was supposed to be reviewed after a period of time. i think it's going to be a combination of reviewing existing agreements, making sure the countries are living up to what they said they would do, and looking at where there are changes, they are important -- where there are changes that are important to american interests and workers. charlie: at heart, he sees life in terms of winning and losing. he sees life, on the other hand, as a negotiation. is that a fair appraisal? steven: that is. i think the first part, the winning and losing is. he has to win to become president. this is a man that has negotiated very successful agreements in his life. he knows that dealing with other countries around the world will
be a negotiation. charlie: in a good negotiation, everybody knows the worst thing you could do is for the other person to walk away feeling like they have been beaten to death. you want people to come out thinking they were a winner also, do you not? steve: absolutely. the trump presidency wants agreements that are fair for both parties, for them not to be one-sided. the most important part is they have to be fair to the american public and the american worker. charlie: has he changed since that time you had that conversation you ago? has the campaign -- has the experience -- has the enormous challenge of running for president changed him? steven: i think it has. i think he is much more thoughtful on many of these issues. i think he understands these issues better today. i think he's also heard from the american public over the last year and really understands -- you know, as you said, he is a messenger of what's going on. charlie: and running is also a learning experience.
steven: it is, indeed. and i think the aspect of competing against the republicans was very different than what he's doing today in going after hillary clinton. charlie: what is it about him as a family man? steven: i think he's done an incredible job in instilling values and work ethic in his kids, and that's something very hard to do in a family business. but i will also tell you a story i just heard, that they had christmas dinner every year and there were two tables. one table was for the grown-ups and one table was for the kids. half the time, donald would sit at the table with the kids because he really enjoyed it and he wanted to be with them. charlie: yeah. what do you worry about in this campaign? are you worried that this is going to be such a campaign that's going to be so mean and so dirty that it will spin out of control? steven: no, i'm not concerned about that at all. what i worry about is making sure that the american public
understands what the trump/pence presidency is really all about. charlie: so, tell us now. what is it really all about? steven: i think it's about making america great again. charlie: the slogan. steven: what does it really mean, make america great again? it means creating opportunities for the american worker, making sure that america is safe again. if you look at what's going on in the world today, there is very significant foreign-policy issues. there is very significant security issues. there is very significant terrorist issues. and this is going to be a big part of this presidency. charlie: who is his most important economic advisor? steven: you know, there's a bunch of people. there's a big group of people. and actually, i think we will be putting out a press release this week listing the economic advisory council. so, there's a group of about 10 people that are a combination of business people and economists who have been advising the campaign. tom is on that list. tom barrack.
charlie: and you are on that list. steven: i'm going to be on that list, and there are others i don't yet want to announce. charlie: you have a very good life in los angeles. steven: the weather is terrific there. charlie: can you imagine going to washington as secretary of the treasury, say? steven: let me say, first of all, i'd be honored to serve this country, serve donald trump in any role that he wants me in. it's a bit premature to worry about any of those roles. i can tell you the transition to office has not yet started. charlie: thank you, steven. we will be right back. ♪
charlie: donald trump sat down for an extensive foreign policy conversation with "the new york times" on wednesday. the republican presidential candidate questioned the u.s. commitment to nato and said that allies might not be automatically defended if under attack. his comments were met with heavy criticism. here to talk with us, david sanger, who cowrote that article. also, ian bremmer. here it is, "trump plays down the role of u.s. in foreign crisis, says the nation should fix our own mess before getting involved abroad." this came out in an interview with donald trump on wednesday. tell me about the interview? david: the interview was the
second part of the conversation we began in march. this is, i think, mr. trump trying to lay out what his foreign-policy principles are, how they differ, not only from what president obama is doing, what secretary of state clinton would do if elected, but even from the orthodoxies of the republican party. and that's what's so fascinating about it. the republican party has been the party of internationalism -- charlie: trade. david: free trade, certainly since the end of world war ii. it was, of course, one of the founders of nato. three months ago, when maggie and i went to go see mr. trump, he was discussing how the united states would pull back from nato, from japan, from korea if they did not pay a larger burden of keeping troops there. yesterday he went a step beyond, when i asked him, so, imagine for a moment that the russians went into one of the baltic republics. charlie: not an unimaginable
circumstance. david: certainly not. i just came back from the baltics. i was just in estonia. they are thinking about it every day as they watch russian bombers off the coast of finland and so forth. and he said he wouldn't automatically come to their defense. he said he would take a look and see what their contribution to nato and to us had been. so, he was putting an economic test, whether they were spending enough, ahead of the article five commitment that all members of nato sign up to, that an attack on one is an attack on all. charlie: what's your response to this? ian: i think trump would respond to someone differently with the take. he said, "look, i want to maintain these commitments. i'm all about maintaining these commitments. but i've said i'm not going to allow these guys to be free riders." charlie: "free riders" is a term president obama used with jeff goldberg.
ian: absolutely. mike pence was part of that group, frankly, until a week ago. and they disagree with absolutely everything here, but we can't dismiss the fact that the average american really does find resonance with what trump is saying, that the americans are continuing to say, we will be the global sheriff, the global policeman -- the allies aren't pulling their weight. the countries getting the attention are some of the very few that are actually paying more than the 2% suggested per gdp for defense. charlie: some of the places like britain and france. ian: he's really talking about places like italy and canada that are paying virtually nothing for defense. no one's going to attack them anytime soon. charlie: whether it is president obama or donald trump, they are both talking about -- david: that's what's fascinating about this, because the diagnosis of the problem that
donald trump has offered is basically the same diagnosis the president obama -- that president obama has offered. i was at the nato summit a few weeks ago. he was there. he was chastising the countries that had not paid up to the 2% or more of gdp. that's the number that they sort of agreed on as a loose target two years ago. bob gates, his former defense secretary and defense secretary for president bush, in his last major speech in europe before he left as defense secretary, basically said, "if you don't begin to take your own share of the burden, you are going to lose a generation of americans and others will have no memory of the cold war and don't know why nato exists." but mr. trump takes it the next step to say, "look, i'm not just saying here is a goal that would be nice if you meet it. i'm saying, if you don't meet it, i'm pulling the troops back and i may not come to your defense." ian: this is a consistent element, though, of mr. trump's critique of american foreign-policy.
he made the same argument about japan and korea in that last interview. i said, if we pull back, then the japanese and the south koreans are going to doubt whether our nuclear umbrella covers them. do you have any problem if they build a nuclear weapon? he said, "well, i don't want them to, but they're probably going to do it anyway." ian: i think there are a few questions that still need to be teased out with where trump still stands. he has talked about nato as a kind of archaic, increasingly obsolete organization. is the issue that he's going to have this individual test with individual countries? where is he saying something broader, that we have an alliance with the majority of the burdens on america, most other countries don't care? the brits are saying brexit, therefore the new foreign secretary isn't paying attention
to the rest of the world. the german, the french, the italians all going different ways on russia. the 2017 sanctions will probably be unwound in some way. is he saying "i want to restructure this the way i want to restructure nafta"? we have not seen that from him yet. newt gingrich came out this morning and he was asked about estonia. his response was, "well, look, it's basically a suburb of st. petersburg." charlie: he said that on cbs "this morning." ian: he said i don't want to risk a nuclear war to support them. that's consistent with what trump has been saying. that's talking about not our problem. has trump really explained where he stands on this? not exactly. final point, he basically said, look, we are not interested in looking at the internal values of the countries that we are talking to. so, turkey, sort of going after human rights internally, becoming more putin style, as long as they are providing
support for the alliance, that's what matters to us. that's a real departure from what we've seen from trump historically. charlie: here's another question that i pursued with newt gingrich this morning. yes, this is nato. yes, this is an agreement. is it like countries around the world are going to begin to say, "can we depend on america," if that is the mindset? does that mean they will begin to say, "maybe we better begin to look elsewhere for a relationship"? david: if trump had come on 10 years ago, this might be less of a concern, but we have now gone through a number of years where major american allies, whether in europe, the middle east, asia, they are all saying, "we don't know how committed america is to us." if trump becomes president, they are going to see that they are increasingly certain that the americans aren't committed to
them. and many of these countries feel like they do increasingly have options. this is why the u.k., for example, was tilting towards china on the asian infrastructure investment bank. this is why the french decided to go with the lisbon treaty after their bombing. charlie: what would obama do if, in fact, we had to move on estonia? would obama risk nuclear war for that? david: whether he would risk it is one thing. i can tell you this, he went and stood in the estonian parliament and said "the nato treaty and our obligations to come to your defense apply equally to the old nato members and to the newest, and we will be here for you." now, partly, you've got to do that, because a big part of your deterrent is convincing the russians or any other adversary that you mean it -- charlie: but if you say things like this, you don't convince them that you mean it. david: so, i think the biggest concern that comes out of what mr. trump said to me and to
maggie is that, if elected, mr. trump will come into office with the russians probably eager to go test him. now, it's possible that, to mr. trump, this is nothing but a negotiating ploy. this is how he would deal with the negotiation over a building. he said to me a few times -- this interview and the previous one -- "you know, it's not going to be a problem, david, because, in the end, they will pay the money, they will come around." charlie: a friend of his said just that, a lot of this is a negotiating ploy. that's how he sees the world, is making a deal. it's not a foreign-policy, though. david: i pressed him on this a few times. you will see it on the transcript, which is on the times' site. he does not see these alliances as necessarily in america's interests for their own
purposes. he sees it as a financial transaction. and so, if we are defending a country and we are running a trade deficit with that country, he says, "this doesn't make sense to me. this doesn't sound very smart." a lot of people would say, "we have a lot of reasons to be out in the pacific apart from our trade relationships. we want to be out there early so they cannot lob a missile towards the united states. we want to contain the chinese as they expand in the south china sea." when i pressed him on this, he did not see those as interests that were so great that they would be overarching despite the economic relationships. ian: that's what i think was particularly meaningful here, the transactional nature that trump brings to american strategy. if you combine that with the issue of values, he doesn't see
america as aligned with worldview. it is more, how are we doing, are we getting a good deal? that's interesting, because it means america's foreign-policy under trump is becoming a lot more chinese. it's much more unilateral, much more transactional, quid pro quo. that is exactly the way xi jinping is seeing himself in engaging with other countries. charlie: hillary clinton's campaign put out a statement invoking ronald reagan to blast trump. "ronald reagan would be ashamed, harry truman would be ashamed, republicans, democrats, and independents who helped build nato would all come to the conclusion -- donald trump is temperamentally unfit and fundamentally ill-prepared to be our commander-in-chief." that came from clinton's senior policy advisor. david: look, you've had a lot of
republicans who talked about nixon. there have been a lot of comparisons to the trump approach and the nixon approach. including the madman theory. appeared to be out of control and so forth. he said, "you know, this is an entirely different thing. our problems today bear no resemblance to our problems 40 years ago." even when i pressed him on "america first," whether or not he would characterize his approach as "america first," he says, "i don't mean it in a historic sense." i mean it in a two-day sense -- today sense. it's almost as if history starts now. i don't know whether that is because he believes the historical conditions don't apply to today's problems or is it that he is less familiar with the historical issues. whatever it is, he's dealing with it in the moment. charlie: final word. ian: one thing that impressed me, in between the two conversations you had, trump did get more versed on foreign-policy.
he is making sense of who is connected to whom, who doesn't like whom. sod. the kurds, the charlie: in other words, you disagree with his argument but give him credit for drilling down on his argument. ian: this wasn't ben carson. he may be intellectually lazy, but he isn't stupid. the fact that he realizes this is something he is going to need to talk more about is to his credit. this is a problem for the establishment in the u.s. because they are not prepared to go after a populist foreign-policy. they have not had to do with it and any of their careers. they are now going to have to. this is going to be serious in the upcoming elections. david: he's going to start to get intelligence briefings as soon as this convention is over. those intelligence briefings, which president obama, james clyburn, the director of national intelligence, will team up to whatever level they want to reveal to him. those intelligence briefings will begin to give him a sense of threat of the world and the interrelated nature of these. it will be interesting to see if they change his thinking. and then he goes into the
mark: you are watching "bloomberg west." german police are warning people to stay indoors as they hunt for the gun man who opened fire at a munich shopping mall. eight people were killed, several wounded in a rampage authorities described as suspected terrorism. a ninth body near the scene is being examined to see if it is one of three gunmen who carried out the attack. president hollande says that france will loan artillery to iraq. he's moving an aircraft carrier to the region. speaking in paris, president hollande pledged to act "firmly against terrorists." the highest court in france has